Cheng Yao, Xiong Xianze, Lu Jiong, Wu Sijia, Zhou Rongxing, Cheng Nansheng
Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 2;6(6):CD011670. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011670.pub2.
Appendiceal phlegmon and abscess account for 2% to 10% of acute appendicitis. People with appendiceal phlegmon or abscess usually need an appendicectomy to relieve their symptoms and avoid complications. The timing of appendicectomy for appendiceal phlegmon or abscess is controversial.
To assess the effects of early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal phlegmon or abscess, in terms of overall morbidity and mortality.
We searched the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1950 to 23 August 2016), Embase Ovid (1974 to 23 August 2016), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 23 August 2016), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 23 August 2016). We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal (23 August 2016) and ClinicalTrials.gov (23 August 2016) for ongoing trials.
We included all individual and cluster-randomised controlled trials, irrespective of language, publication status, or age of participants, comparing early versus delayed appendicectomy in people with appendiceal phlegmon or abscess.
Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
We included two randomised controlled trials with a total of 80 participants in this review. 1. Early versus delayed open appendicectomy for appendiceal phlegmonForty participants (paediatric and adults) with appendiceal phlegmon were randomised either to early appendicectomy (appendicectomy as soon as appendiceal mass resolved within the same admission) (n = 20), or to delayed appendicectomy (initial conservative treatment followed by interval appendicectomy six weeks later) (n = 20). The trial was at high risk of bias. There was no mortality in either group. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of using either early or delayed open appendicectomy onoverall morbidity (RR 13.00; 95% CI 0.78 to 216.39; very low-quality evidence), the proportion of participants who developed wound infection (RR 9.00; 95% CI 0.52 to 156.91; very low quality evidence) or faecal fistula (RR 3.00; 95% CI 0.13 to 69.52; very low quality evidence). The quality of evidence for increased length of hospital stay and time away from normal activities in the early appendicectomy group (MD 6.70 days; 95% CI 2.76 to 10.64, and MD 5.00 days; 95% CI 1.52 to 8.48, respectively) is very low quality evidence. The trial reported neither quality of life nor pain outcomes. 2. Early versus delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendiceal abscessForty paediatric participants with appendiceal abscess were randomised either to early appendicectomy (emergent laparoscopic appendicectomy) (n = 20) or to delayed appendicectomy (initial conservative treatment followed by interval laparoscopic appendicectomy 10 weeks later) (n = 20). The trial was at high risk of bias. The trial did not report on overall morbidity or complications. There was no mortality in either group. We do not have sufficient evidence to determine the effects of using either early or delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for outcomes relating to hospital stay between the groups (MD -0.20 days; 95% CI -3.54 to 3.14; very low quality of evidence). Health-related quality of life was measured with the Pediatric Quality of Life Scale-Version 4.0 questionnaire (a scale of 0 to 100 with higher values indicating a better quality of life). Health-related quality of life score measured at 12 weeks after appendicectomy was higher in the early appendicectomy group than in the delayed appendicectomy group (MD 12.40 points; 95% CI 9.78 to 15.02) but the quality of evidence was very low. This trial reported neither the pain nor the time away from normal activities.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear whether early appendicectomy prevents complications compared to delayed appendicectomy for people with appendiceal phlegmon or abscess. The evidence indicating increased length of hospital stay and time away from normal activities in people with early open appendicectomy is of very low quality. The evidence for better health-related quality of life following early laparoscopic appendicectomy compared with delayed appendicectomy is based on very low quality evidence. For both comparisons addressed in this review, data are sparse, and we cannot rule out significant benefits or harms of early versus delayed appendicectomy.Further trials on this topic are urgently needed and should specify a set of criteria for use of antibiotics, percutaneous drainage of the appendiceal abscess prior to surgery and resolution of the appendiceal phlegmon or abscess. Future trials should include outcomes such as time away from normal activities, quality of life and the length of hospital stay.
阑尾蜂窝织炎和脓肿占急性阑尾炎的2%至10%。患有阑尾蜂窝织炎或脓肿的患者通常需要进行阑尾切除术以缓解症状并避免并发症。阑尾蜂窝织炎或脓肿的阑尾切除时机存在争议。
从总体发病率和死亡率方面评估早期与延迟阑尾切除术治疗阑尾蜂窝织炎或脓肿的效果。
我们检索了Cochrane图书馆(CENTRAL;2016年第7期)、MEDLINE Ovid(1950年至2016年8月23日)、Embase Ovid(1974年至2016年8月23日)、科学引文索引扩展版(1900年至2016年8月23日)以及中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)(1978年至2016年8月23日)。我们还检索了世界卫生组织(WHO)国际临床试验注册平台搜索门户(2016年8月23日)和ClinicalTrials.gov(2016年8月23日)以查找正在进行的试验。
我们纳入了所有个体和整群随机对照试验,无论语言、发表状态或参与者年龄,比较早期与延迟阑尾切除术治疗阑尾蜂窝织炎或脓肿患者的效果。
两位综述作者独立确定纳入的试验,收集数据并评估偏倚风险。我们使用Review Manager 5进行荟萃分析。我们计算二分结局的风险比(RR)和连续结局的平均差(MD),并给出95%置信区间(CI)。
本综述纳入了两项随机对照试验,共80名参与者。1. 早期与延迟开放性阑尾切除术治疗阑尾蜂窝织炎40名患有阑尾蜂窝织炎的参与者(儿童和成人)被随机分为早期阑尾切除术组(在同一住院期间阑尾肿块一旦消退即行阑尾切除术)(n = 20)或延迟阑尾切除术组(初始保守治疗,六周后行间隔阑尾切除术)(n = 20)。该试验存在高偏倚风险。两组均无死亡病例。没有足够的证据来确定早期或延迟开放性阑尾切除术对总体发病率(RR 13.00;95% CI 0.78至216.39;极低质量证据)、发生伤口感染的参与者比例(RR 9.00;95% CI 0.52至156.91;极低质量证据)或粪瘘(RR 3.00;95% CI 0.13至69.52;极低质量证据)的影响。早期阑尾切除术组住院时间延长和正常活动时间减少的证据质量极低(MD 6.70天;95% CI 2.76至10.64,以及MD 5.00天;95% CI 1.52至8.48)。该试验未报告生活质量和疼痛结局。2. 早期与延迟腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗阑尾脓肿40名患有阑尾脓肿的儿童参与者被随机分为早期阑尾切除术组(急诊腹腔镜阑尾切除术)(n = 20)或延迟阑尾切除术组(初始保守治疗,十周后行间隔腹腔镜阑尾切除术)(n = 20)。该试验存在高偏倚风险。该试验未报告总体发病率或并发症情况。两组均无死亡病例。我们没有足够的证据来确定早期或延迟腹腔镜阑尾切除术对两组住院时间相关结局的影响(MD -0.20天;95% CI -3.54至3.14;极低质量证据)。使用儿童生活质量量表第4.0版问卷(范围为0至100,分数越高表明生活质量越好)测量健康相关生活质量。阑尾切除术后12周测量的健康相关生活质量评分,早期阑尾切除术组高于延迟阑尾切除术组(MD 12.40分;95% CI 9.78至15.02),但证据质量极低。该试验未报告疼痛和正常活动时间。
对于患有阑尾蜂窝织炎或脓肿的患者,与延迟阑尾切除术相比,早期阑尾切除术是否能预防并发症尚不清楚。表明早期开放性阑尾切除术患者住院时间延长和正常活动时间减少的证据质量极低。与延迟阑尾切除术相比,早期腹腔镜阑尾切除术后健康相关生活质量更好的证据基于极低质量证据。对于本综述中涉及的两种比较,数据都很稀少,我们不能排除早期与延迟阑尾切除术的显著益处或危害。迫切需要关于这个主题的进一步试验,试验应明确使用抗生素、术前阑尾脓肿经皮引流以及阑尾蜂窝织炎或脓肿消退的一套标准。未来的试验应包括正常活动时间、生活质量和住院时间等结局指标。